In Time, Capitalism and Alienation. A Socio-Historical Inquiry into the Making of Modern Time, Jonathan Martineau offers an account of the histories of social time in Europe, from the innovation of the clock around 1300 to the making of World Standard Time around the turn of the twentieth century. Approaching 'time' as a social phenomenon traversed by various power and property relations, this work provides a socio-theoretical and historical analysis of the relationship between clock-time and capitalist social relations, problematizing the rise to hegemony of a clock-time regime harnessing various social temporalities to the purpose of capitalist development. This book sheds light on the alienating tendencies of the modern temporal regime and the relationship between time and modern economic development.

This book offers a new and unique assessment of the theoretical analysis of work, challenging some common preconceptions and promoting an original approach to the field, contemplating its nature, development and its impact on human well-being.

Commentators across the political spectrum have argued that the future has been absorbed by an ever-expanding present to which we cannot imagine alternatives. The notion that we have lost the ability to imagine change-culturally, socially, and politically-has become one of the defining problems of our time. But what is the difference between the populist narratives of those who promise to solve this problem by returning us to a glorious past and those who promise to lead us into a glorious future? Often, this book argues, not very much at all. Revealing neo-authoritarianism and capitalist hyper-innovation as two sides of the same coin, Mathias Nilges shows that today's reactionaries and futurists both harness and profit from the same temporal crises of our present. Looking to design, popular culture, literature, and recent theoretical and political discussions, Nilges offers ways of understanding the re-emergence of familiar and disturbing forms of right-wing politics and culture (authoritarianism, paternalism, fascism) not as historical repetition but as dangerous consequences of the contradictions of capitalism today. Using critical theory, in particular the work of Ernst Bloch, this book recovers a politics and culture of hope, which it locates beyond a future that is colonized by capitalism and a past that becomes the mystical playground for the new Right:in that which was never allowed to be and thus demands realization.

According to postmodern scholars, subjects are defined only through their relationship to institutions and social norms. But if we are only political people insofar as we are subjects of existing power relations, there is little hope of political transformation. To instigate change, we need to draw on collective power, but appealing to a particular type of subject, whether "working class," "black," or "women," will always be exclusionary. This issue is a particular problem for feminist scholars, who are frequently criticized for assuming that they can make broad claims for all women, while failing to acknowledge their own exclusive and powerful position (mostly white, Western, and bourgeois). Recent work in political and feminist thought has suggested that we can get around these paradoxes by wishing away the idea of political subjects entirely or else thinking of political identities as constantly shifting. In this book, Claudia Leeb argues that these are both failed ideas. She instead suggests a novel idea of a subject in outline. Over the course of the book Leeb grounds this concept in work by Adorno, Lacan, and Marx - the very theorists who are often seen as denying the agency of the subject. Leeb also proposes that power structures that create political subjects are never all-powerful. While she rejects the idea of political autonomy, she shows that there is always a moment in which subjects can contest the power relations that define them.

Experimental Times is an in-depth ethnography of the transformation of Bengaluru/Bangalore from a site of "backend" IT work to an aspirational global city of enterprise and innovation. The book journeys alongside the migrant workers, technologists, and entrepreneurs who shape and survive the dreams of a "Startup India" knitted through office work, at networking meetings and urban festivals, and across sites of leisure in the city. Tracking techno-futures that involve automation and impending precarity, Hemangini Gupta details the everyday forms of experimentation, care, and friendship that sustain and reproduce life and labor in India's current economy.

Since the turn of the millennium, protests, meetings, schoolrooms, reading groups and many other social forms have been proposed as artworks or, more ambiguously, as interventions that are somewhere between art and politics. This book surveys the resurgence of politicized art, tracing key currents of theory and practice, and mapping them against the dominant experience of the last decade: crisis. Drawing upon leading artists and theorists within this field – including Hito Steyerl, Marina Vishmidt, Art & Language, Gregory Sholette, John Roberts and Dave Beech – this book argues for a new interpretation of the relationship between socially-engaged art and neoliberalism. Kim Charnley explores the possibility that neoliberalism has destabilized the art system so that it is no longer able to absorb and neutralize dissent. As a result, the relationship between aesthetics and politics is experienced with fresh urgency and militancy.

Marx’s Capital, Capitalism and Limits to the State examines the capitalist state in the abstract, and as it exists in advanced capitalism and peripheral capitalism, illustrating the ideas with evidence from the North and the South. The volume unpacks the capitalist state’s functions in relation to commodity relations, private property, and the crisis-ridden production of (surplus) value as a part of the capital circuit (M-C-M′). It also examines state’s political and geographical forms. It argues that no matter how autonomous it is, the state cannot meet the pressing needs of the masses significantly and sustainably. This is not because of so-called capitalist constraints, but because the state is inherently capitalist. Each chapter begins with Capital volume 1. And each chapter ends with theoretical/practical implications of the ideas which taken together counter existing state theory’s focus on state autonomy and reforms and point to the necessity for the masses to establish a new transitional democratic state. But the book goes ‘beyond’ Marx too, as it deploys the combined Marxism of 19th and 20th centuries. Marx’s Capital, Capitalism and Limits to the State will interest scholars researching state-society/economy relations. It is suitable for university students as well as established scholars in sociology, political science, heterodox economics, human geography, and international development.

The book ‘Everything with Capitalism is not bad’ is perhaps the first of its kind ever. Usually this has been a fashion for the intellectuals to counter capitalism at all levels especially by the influence of communism. But this book argues that there are a lot of good points in capitalism such as entrepreneurship, innovation and competition all of which may produce an energetic and intelligent community if it is practiced at social levels and thus these features can open the route of horizontal capitalism throughout the world. In spite of some critical estimates, this book throws light on its positive social and cultural implications as a result of which vertical capitalism and crony capitalism will come to an end and world will prosper at large. If I am asked as to what problems am I setting out to solve I can answer that I am presenting many good points of capitalism and thus pleading that capitalism, if somewhat reorganized, can be the alternative doctrine of the day. If one asks me as to what confusions do I wish to clarify, I want to clear that capitalism is not all-out bad; it has some good points as well that can economically and culturally benefit the human society. In the question of what previously unknown or unfortunately neglected story am I planning to tell, I must argue that positive cultural implications of capitalism are perhaps the untold story here. For the question as to how can be this book different from all other denominations of this topic I must say that all other books are absolutely critical about capitalism but this book has offered a mixed perception with special emphasis on its good points. This book matters to everyone from common people to statesman.

Should we try to “live in the present”? Such is the imperative of modernity, Jed Rubenfeld writes in this important and original work of political theory. Since Jefferson proclaimed that “the earth belongs to the living”—since Freud announced that mental health requires people to “get free of their past”—since Nietzsche declared that the happy man is the man who “leaps” into “the moment—modernity has directed its inhabitants to live in the present, as if there alone could they find happiness, authenticity, and above all freedom. But this imperative, Rubenfeld argues, rests on a profoundly inadequate, deforming picture of the relationship between freedom and time. Instead, Rubenfeld suggests, human freedom—human being itself—-necessarily extends into both past and future; self-government consists of giving our lives meaning and purpose over time. From this conception of self-government, Rubenfeld derives a new theory of constitutional law’s place in democracy. Democracy, he writes, is not a matter of governance by the present “will of the people” it is a matter of a nation’s laying down and living up to enduring political and legal commitments. Constitutionalism is not counter to democracy, as many believe, or a pre-condition of democracy; it is or should be democracy itself--over time. On this basis, Rubenfeld offers a new understanding of constitutional interpretation and of the fundamental right of privacy.

For 10,000 years before any European immigrants arrived on the North American Continent, Native American Indians engaged in a communal lifestyle. From 1600 to 1791, American Colonists established a thriving home production economy, and having ownership of their tools, or means of production, they produced everything they needed to survive. They were self-reliant, and the American Colonists sold their excess goods to merchants, who resold them for a profit. By 1791, the merchants were able to start the first textile factories as a result, which brought an abrupt end to the home production economy, and the beginning of American Capitalism. Former independent colonists were now forced into the textile factory, and the first wage contract appeared in America. The wage contract also set in motion a contradiction between the capitalist owners of the means of production and the new American Working Class. The wage contract allowed the owners of working class labor, and the instruments of production, to evolve into an American Ruling Class, and the producers of all commodities and wealth became the American Working Class People wage-workers class. Because of their divergent interests, the two classes formed a class contradiction, and the latter became known as the capitalist American Ruling Class Opposite and the American Working Class Opposite (People) wage-workers. This development occurred mainly in the northern factory economy, while in the South, uncompensated African Slave Labor was dominant, which was owned by an American Slaveholding Class. By 1860, the contradiction between the capitalist American Ruling Class Opposite owner of the wage labor system came into a head-on contradiction with uncompensated African Slave Labor, and a bloody Civil War was fought to determine which type of means of production would prevail and dominate during the 20th Century? The South was defeated, and the wage contract system became nationalized. Therefore, throughout the twentieth Century, including the beginning of the new Millennium, the capitalist American Ruling Class Opposite expropriated the labor’s product of the American Working Class Opposite (People) wage-workers, which resulted in this class accumulation of multiple-billions of dollars of Surplus-Value, and simultaneously this loss translated into the American Working Class Opposite (People) wage-workers’ increasing alienation, estrangement, loss self-identity, self-expression, and freedom.